Bombay High Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Doubtful Identification. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 22
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, original accused Nos. 2 and 4, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, in Sessions Case No. 44 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 each. They appealed against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2003. The brief facts of the case are that the prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with other accused, committed the murder of the deceased. The sole eyewitness, who was examined, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The other evidence on record was found to be inconsistent and doubtful. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the identification of the appellants was not reliable and the circumstances did not conclusively point to their guilt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants. The court directed that the appellants be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC - Appeal against conviction - Appellants convicted for murder based on testimony of sole eyewitness - Witness turned hostile and did not support prosecution case - Other evidence inconsistent and doubtful - Held that conviction cannot be sustained when evidence is unreliable and prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.

Law Points

  • Benefit of doubt
  • Inconsistent evidence
  • Identification of accused
  • Circumstantial evidence
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (06) 21

Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2003

2018-06-21

T.V. Nalawade, K.L. Wadane

Mr. Jaydeep Chatterji for Appellants, Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar for Respondent/State

Amjad Shaikh Kamroddin Mansuri and Fatimabi w/o Kamroddin Mansuri

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought acquittal by setting aside conviction and sentence

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellants on 10.01.2003 in Sessions Case No. 44 of 2001

Issues

Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the evidence was inconsistent and the sole eyewitness turned hostile. State argued that the conviction was based on reliable evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

When the evidence is inconsistent and the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal.

Judgment Excerpts

The sole eyewitness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The other evidence on record was found to be inconsistent and doubtful.

Procedural History

Trial court convicted appellants on 10.01.2003 in Sessions Case No. 44 of 2001. Appellants appealed to the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings for Violation of Election Code of Conduct Under Section 188 IPC — Lack of Sanction Under Section 195 CrPC Renders Prosecution Unsustainable. The court held that without a complaint by the public servan...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Doubtful Identification. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.